Oh, like the Pegasus air-launch system. Works fine, but not a huge win on cost.
I'm surprised that anyone wants to launch from that far north. Most launch sites are further south, so you get more velocity from the earth's rotation.
I think the main win is flexibility, you don't need as much infrastructure at your "spaceport". The payload is small so the fuel savings from launching closer to the equator would be minimal, especially for higher inclination orbits. Plus it's an easy political win to do the launches locally (the UK's plan calls for spaceport in Scotland, England, and Wales. I suppose that's their equivalent of NASA projects being built in all 50 states to spread the pork around). Plus doing launches in overseas colonies/possessions can be politically fraught. It occasionally has been an issue in France
There's been talk of a spaceport in Scotland as well (possibly a competing bid to this). The touted benefit of being further North was easier launches into polar orbits.
There are more costs than just the launch itself though. The UK has a pretty big space industry. Lots of satellites and satellite components are made here. Not needing to ship your payload to Kazakstan probably saves a few quid if you're building a lot of it in the UK, and the reduced risk of it being damaged in transit will help significantly.
> I'm surprised that anyone wants to launch from that far north. Most launch sites are further south, so you get more velocity from the earth's rotation.
The reason is that Scotland and northerly launch sites favour launches into polar orbits.
This is kind of surprising. I knew that UK had built and launched rockets to orbit early on, but apparently only in Australia. I'd expected that some of the early testing might've been done there.
Yes, at the bottom of Tennyson Down before the Needles! A concrete rocket motor hard stand built into the side of the slope. Slept out on it for a lunar eclipse one summer night.
It's a good choice of location, because you have a decent chunk of Isle of Wight in between the noise of the rocket (and any consequences of rapid unscheduled disassemblies) and populated land.
The geography of the UK isn't really suitable for space launches. You want to launch eastwards to benefit from the rotation of the Earth, and (unless you're China) you don't want to launch over land in case your rocket fails. Launch sites further south might also be preferable as they have better access to low inclination orbits (though for polar orbits you'd prefer northern launch sites). There's no good location in the UK that satisfies all these. Btw, the US does most of its launches from Floria for much the same reasons.
> “The geography of the UK isn't really suitable for space launches.”
Scotland is actually a pretty good location for polar and sun-synchronous (SSO) orbits. You can do coastal launches over the sea, while still being relatively close to populated regions with good transport link and infrastructure.
The only way by road into the Moine Peninsula would be along the A836 up through the centre of Sutherland. You'd probably need to upgrade the entire length of road to be able to accommodate heavy loads and take out any tight turns. Possibly more practical would be to build a port in Loch Eriboll and ship absolutely everything in. The expense, in either case, would be eye-watering. In short that BBC article is one long on imagination and short on everything else.
The UK cancelled its Black Arrow rocket programme at exactly the worst possible time: after all the money had been spent, but before any benefits were realised. The rocket that was launched only happened because those responsible decided to ignore the cancellation and do the launch anyway.
> [the site] had satisfied the authorities that it had the infrastructure, equipment and services for horizontal space launches.
Same as any other airport that can accomodate a 747? You can call it a "horizontal space launch" to make it sound important, but it's basically just a plane taking off?
You're trucking in an airframe, fuel, oxygen and assembling the product.
All of these things routinely get trucked around and there's already an established system of rules for doing so.
Sure, assembling and fueling the vehicle is a little different but it's not much different than the fuel truck and the oxygen truck showing up to a chemical plant on the same morning. Airports already have precedent and procedure for handling exotic fuels.
The cargo here is no more interesting or deserving of special care (and in some cases it's less) than the stuff the oil and gas industry flies around the north sea.
I'm sure "but safety" is how the bureaucrats justify the extra make-work but that's a pretty worthless justification in a world where you don't need a special site permit to load a case of explosives or hazmat onto a chopper so long as you follow the preexisting handling requirements for whatever it is you're handling.
So yeah, I see this as pointless red tape and it's doubly a nuisance seeing as commercial space flight is a fledging industry that probably should be nurtured by government rather than fought. If they were actually shooting off rockets I'd feel differently but that's not the case.
You know you have to fill out quite a bit of paperwork to demonstrate you are capable of safely handling chemicals when building and operating a chemical plant too.
An airport needs a special license to be a spaceport not because it is fundamentally harder, just because it requires a different skillset.
> The entire UK space industry has been a downer for the last 50 years
True for launches but we have a lot of innovation in satellite design and manufacture. E.g. ion drives used in Earth orbit and for planetary missions [0] and [1]
I always though that spaceports needed enormous area of ocean/desert or other inhabitat land to the immediate east to have potential crashes not endanger anyone. (east is due to the rotation direction of our planet)
It depends on the final orbit. For most orbits you are 100% correct, and I would also add that the ideal position is as close to the equator as possible.
For some orbits (for example around the poles) the UK is actually a good place. Though I don't know the exact details.
It is good that two similar projects are happening in the UK, one in the north, in Scotland, and one in the south, in Cornwall. These are the types of projects that are required that will boost the economy and prepare younger generation for better jobs. How much ever a small step it might be, it is a good start.
48 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 53.7 ms ] threadI'm surprised that anyone wants to launch from that far north. Most launch sites are further south, so you get more velocity from the earth's rotation.
Oh, the branding opportunities!
There are more costs than just the launch itself though. The UK has a pretty big space industry. Lots of satellites and satellite components are made here. Not needing to ship your payload to Kazakstan probably saves a few quid if you're building a lot of it in the UK, and the reduced risk of it being damaged in transit will help significantly.
The reason is that Scotland and northerly launch sites favour launches into polar orbits.
The rocket was developed and built in the US and projected to be launched from multiple countries around the world.
So nothing UK specific in it.
Scotland is actually a pretty good location for polar and sun-synchronous (SSO) orbits. You can do coastal launches over the sea, while still being relatively close to populated regions with good transport link and infrastructure.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-48119118.amp
The route to the Highlands site is an A-road in name only - it's one way for most of the route. The nearest train station is about 15 miles away.
The route to the Shetlands site is a prop plane or a ferry and then a decent drive on fairly minor roads including another ferry.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1214197384382754816.html (or https://nitter.net/garius/status/1214197384382754816)
Common problem in UK big project funding.
From what I remember they convinced treasury that launching rocket and satellite is the cheapest form of disposing it
And besides, the fuel could be resold, and all the metals would have had scrap value.
Same as any other airport that can accomodate a 747? You can call it a "horizontal space launch" to make it sound important, but it's basically just a plane taking off?
All of these things routinely get trucked around and there's already an established system of rules for doing so.
Sure, assembling and fueling the vehicle is a little different but it's not much different than the fuel truck and the oxygen truck showing up to a chemical plant on the same morning. Airports already have precedent and procedure for handling exotic fuels.
The cargo here is no more interesting or deserving of special care (and in some cases it's less) than the stuff the oil and gas industry flies around the north sea.
I'm sure "but safety" is how the bureaucrats justify the extra make-work but that's a pretty worthless justification in a world where you don't need a special site permit to load a case of explosives or hazmat onto a chopper so long as you follow the preexisting handling requirements for whatever it is you're handling.
So yeah, I see this as pointless red tape and it's doubly a nuisance seeing as commercial space flight is a fledging industry that probably should be nurtured by government rather than fought. If they were actually shooting off rockets I'd feel differently but that's not the case.
An airport needs a special license to be a spaceport not because it is fundamentally harder, just because it requires a different skillset.
True for launches but we have a lot of innovation in satellite design and manufacture. E.g. ion drives used in Earth orbit and for planetary missions [0] and [1]
[0] https://www.qinetiq.com/en/blogs/postcards-from-space-ion-th...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrey_Satellite_Technology#Sa...
For some orbits (for example around the poles) the UK is actually a good place. Though I don't know the exact details.